Tag: free speech

We’re At The ‘Free Speech Is Bad Actually’ Stage Of Multiculturalism Now

For years conservatives warned that multiculturalism and free speech are on a collision course. If a society starts treating every culture as equal and beyond criticism, then eventually you have to police speech — and apparently, Europe has decided to do just that.

French influencer Thaïs d’Escufon was allegedly assaulted in 2021 by a North African migrant who — according to d’Escufon — “present[ed] himself as Tunisian.” Two years after the alleged assault, d’Escufon said the main danger to women in France are “Black African and Arab men.” She said Tuesday that she is “facing an unsuspended prison sentence for my comments about the danger posed by immigrant men in France.”

It matters naught whether you agree with her argument (though it should be noted that migrant rape gangs in particular have been victimizing Europeans for years now). What’s important is whether people are allowed to criticize other cultures and immigration policy without potentially being tossed into the slammer.

This wouldn’t be the first time that Europe has punished people for free speech because they condemned the impact of multiculturalism. Eric Zemmour, a candidate for France’s presidential elections in 2022, was found guilty in 2016 for charges related to inciting racial discrimination when he said France had been the victim of an “invasion” of Muslims.

An Austrian woman was convicted in 2018 for calling the prophet Muhammed a pedophile. The woman was convicted for disparaging religion.

In fact, a member of Germany’s Alternative for Germany (AfD) party was convicted for incitement to hatred for using statistics (that were not disputed) to claim Afghan migrants were responsible for a disproportionate amount of sexual violence against women.

It’s an outcome that conservatives have warned about for decades.

In a 2008 column, Pat Buchanan warned: “Canada’s commitment to multiculturalism and the equality of all religions, races and cultures requires the silencing of those who do not believe all races, creed and cultures are equal. The dogmas of the Diverse Society dictate that the cherished rights of the Free Society be sacrificed on the altar of social tranquility.”

Keep reading

Telegram Founder Warns UK Social Media Ban Is Digital Iceberg About To Sink The Free Internet

Telegram founder Pavel Durov told the Freedom Forum audience in Oslo that Western societies have already struck the iceberg and started sinking – yet most citizens remain in their cabins, convinced the ship of personal freedoms is unsinkable.

His remarks arrive precisely as Keir Starmer’s government rams through a social media ban for under-16s that functions as the perfect pretext for mandatory digital ID, device-level scanning on every phone, and the practical elimination of anonymous speech online.

The policy is dressed in the familiar language of child protection. In practice it requires every major platform to verify ages with facial scans, passports or credit card data. What starts as a restriction on minors rapidly becomes a national system of internet passports.

Encrypted messaging apps currently sit outside the ban, but the same Online Safety Act framework already contains the levers to demand backdoors later. Tech executives who refuse to turn every smartphone into a government scanner face up to five years in prison.

Durov drew on two decades running major platforms and direct experience with state pressure in Russia, the EU and France. The core message was unmistakable.

“Our ship has already hit the iceberg. We have already started to sink without even realizing it. And I’m talking about the ship of our personal freedoms.”

Keep reading

Three Debates Americans Have Had For 250 Years

George Washington rode west from Philadelphia in command of 13,000 troops on a mission that would test his leadership unlike any previous campaign.

These men were not soldiers in the Continental Army. They were citizen militiamen—forerunners of the National Guard—called up from Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Jersey. And Washington was no longer simply a general. He was president of the United States.

The year was 1794, and Washington had made one of the most fateful decisions of his presidency: to use armed force against fellow Americans.

Congress, desperate for revenue to pay war debts, had enacted a tax on whiskey. Grain farmers in Western Pennsylvania saw the tax as immoral and unjust.

Protestors attacked revenue agents, destroyed the property of tax-paying farmers, and fired shots that killed a local militiaman.

Growing bolder, they fashioned banners on “liberty poles” with slogans like “Equal Taxation and no Excise” and “Liberty or Death.”

For two years, Washington searched for a peaceful resolution. But when 5,000 rebels gathered outside Pittsburgh, vowing to take the city, he knew the time for action had come.

In the end, the Whiskey Rebellion was anticlimactic, resulting in no further violence.

Yet more than 200 years later, Americans still strenuously disagree on basic questions of government.

When is a president justified in mobilizing the National Guard? At what point does a protest become an insurrection? What counts as free speech?

Some fundamental issues were settled at the nation’s founding, a panel of scholars told The Epoch Times. But more were left unsettled. And Americans continue to debate those same issues today.

Keep reading

Farage Referred for Potential Prosecution over Manchester Airport Comments: Report

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has been referred for potential prosecution over his public critiques of the British justice system amid the controversial Manchester Airport trial.

On Friday, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said that it would not be seeking a third re-trial against Muhammad Amaad, 26, and Mohammed Fahir Amaaz, 21, over the alleged assault of Police Constable Zachary Marsden at Manchester Airport in July 2024, after two juries failed to come to a verdict. Amaaz was previously convicted of assaulting two female officers during the same incident, however.

The altercation initially sparked uproar after selectively edited footage was leaked to the press of PC Marsden apparently kicking one of the accused in the head. Further footage was later published, appearing to show a police woman having her nose broken during the incident, undercutting the initial public narrative, which had sparked unrest in the local Islamic community.

After months of public pressure, including Reform UK hiring attorneys to launch a private prosecution against the two brothers, the CPS charged Amaad and Amaaz over the incident.

However, the nearly five months taken before any prosecution, and the contrasting swift and unrelenting crackdown against the riots following the murder of three young girls at a Taylor Swift dance party in Southport, sparked accusations of unequal justice.

Among those making the critique were Nigel Farage, who said at the time that there was a “system of two-tier policing, under two-tier justice, under two-tier Keir.”

“You only have to look at the reluctance to prosecute those violent thugs in Manchester Airport who beat up the police officers,” he added. “It took months and months for any prosecution to be brought, and I suspect the reason that it happened is because Reform said if they didn’t, we would take out our own private prosecution.”

For such public comments, Judge Neil Flewitt KC referred Mr Farage to Attorney General Lord Hermer for potential criminal prosecution, claiming the statements may have amounted to contempt of court.

“I took the view that the observation made by Nigel Farage was potentially a contempt of court as it implied the guilt of the defendants,” Judge Flewitt wrote, according to The Telegraph.

“As Nigel Farage is a well-known politician with a considerable following and whose public utterances attract a lot of attention, I decided to refer the matter to the Attorney General so that he could consider whether there should be a prosecution for contempt of court.”

However, the judge said that he did not believe that the Reform chief’s comments would “adversely affect the fairness of the trial”.

Responding to reports of the prosecution referral, Mr Farage said on Friday: “It’s quite clear that our judiciary is in an even worse state than I imagined. The politicisation of the courts will end under a Reform government.”

Reform UK shadow Home Secretary Zia Yusuf accused Judge Flewitt of presiding over a “historic miscarriage of justice” in the Manchester Airport trial and said that a Reform government would remove “this unfit judge from office”.

The judge said in his written judgment that Mr Farage’s intervention, “however unwelcome, would not adversely affect the fairness of the trial”.

Keep reading

Belgian Remigration Activist Convicted of “Hate Speech” Over Factual Lecture on Migration, US State Slams Ruling

A controversial court ruling in Belgium is igniting outrage across Europe, after nationalist activist Dries Van Langenhove was convicted for delivering a lecture that cited crime statistics and criticized the impact of mass immigration—raising fresh concerns about the future of free speech on the continent.

The 33-year-old former member of parliament was found guilty by a Leuven court of “incitement to hatred” and “dissemination of ideas,” following a speech at KU Leuven in early 2024. Critics say the ruling sends a chilling message: even fact-based arguments can now be criminalized if they challenge the prevailing narrative.

Van Langenhove was fined €4,000 (approximately $4,300), adding to a growing list of legal penalties he has faced in recent years. He had previously been sentenced over content posted by others in a private group chat—an outcome his supporters say underscores a broader crackdown on dissent.

At the center of the case was a two-hour lecture that moved beyond its original topic to address migration, crime, and societal change. The speech touched on issues that millions of Europeans are increasingly concerned about—but which are often treated as taboo in official discourse.

Van Langenhove argued that mass immigration is linked to rising crime, housing shortages, and growing strain on public services. These claims, backed by statistics, formed the basis of the charges against him.

He also challenged the dominant explanation of inequality. Rather than accepting structural racism as the sole cause, he argued that differences between groups play a role—an argument widely debated but increasingly restricted in public forums.

“People are not equal, animals are not equal, plants are not equal,” he said during the lecture. The statement was seized upon by the court as evidence of wrongdoing.
Judges acknowledged that his statements were based on data and statistics. However, they ruled that presenting such facts in a way that could create a “hostile atmosphere” was sufficient to justify a conviction.

Crucially, the court made clear that direct incitement to violence was not required. It was enough, they argued, that speech could lead to a general sense of “intolerance.”

That standard, for critics, effectively dismantles meaningful free speech. It allows authorities to punish opinions based not on their truth, but on how they are perceived.

The ruling has reignited comparisons with the United States. Under the First Amendment, even controversial or offensive speech is protected unless it directly incites violence.

The U.S. Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, Sarah B. Rogers, chimed in on the ruling, warning that policymakers worried about the rise of the so-called “far right” should stop criminalizing accurate, data-driven political speech about mass migration — as the Belgian court’s ruling against Dries Van Langenhove explicitly does. She argued that such prosecutions simply hand a monopoly on these issues to people willing to be labeled “racist,” giving them sole ownership of arguments that large segments of the public see as important and true.

Keep reading

The Democracy Fund to testify before Senate: Bill C-9 threatens free speech & religious liberty

TDF will appear before the Senate of Canada to warn that Bill C-9 threatens freedom of expression, removes protections for religious speech, and creates sweeping new hate-related offences despite existing laws already addressing such conduct.

OTTAWA: Tomorrow, on Thursday, May 28, 2026, Mark Joseph, Executive Director of The Democracy Fund, will testify before the Senate of Canada on Bill C-9, the “Combatting Hate Act.”

TDF argues that Bill C-9 is unnecessary and dangerously overbroad. The legislation would:

  • Criminalize the display of additional symbols under s. 319, even though existing Criminal Code provisions already address such conduct
  • Eliminate the religious defence under s. 319(3)(b) and (3.1), potentially exposing religious teachings on marriage, sexuality, morality, and scripture to criminal prosecution
  • Create a sweeping new stand-alone “hate-motivated offence” that turns any violation of the Criminal Code or any other Act of Parliament into a serious crime if “motivated by hatred.”
  • Add redundant intimidation and obstruction offences already covered by existing mischief, disturbance, and intimidation laws.

“Bill C-9 represents a major expansion of state power over speech and conduct,” said Mark Joseph, Executive Director of The Democracy Fund. “By removing the religious defence, it will criminalize the public expression of sincerely held religious views believed by millions of Canadians. The new hate-motivated offence will criminalize minor conduct and invite prosecutorial overreach despite existing laws already punishing such crimes. This Bill will not reduce social conflict; it will chill debate, strain judicial resources, and undermine Charter Rights.”

You can read TDF’s brief by clicking here.

Keep reading

Hawaii To Pay Up After Trying to Criminalize Political Memes

Hawaii has agreed to pay $118,237.47 in attorney’s fees and costs to The Babylon Bee and local activist Dawn O’Brien, closing the books on a failed attempt to make some political satire a criminal act.

The state chose not to appeal a January ruling that struck down its so-called deepfake law, Act 191, as facially unconstitutional. It tried to ban speech. It lost. Now, taxpayers are covering the bill.

The settlement comes with an unusual wrinkle. Hawaii can’t actually pay yet. The agreement is contingent on the state legislature appropriating the funds during its next session, which runs from January to May 2027. If the legislature doesn’t approve the money by September 1, 2027, the Bee and O’Brien retain the right to file a formal motion for attorney’s fees, meaning the case would reopen and the final number could climb.

Act 191, signed by Governor Josh Green in July 2024, banned the distribution of “materially deceptive media” during election seasons if it risked “harming the reputation or electoral prospects of a candidate” or “changing the voting behavior of voters.”

The only escape for satirists was to slap joke-killing disclaimers on their content, disclaimers that had to appear throughout the entirety of a video and be printed in letters as large as any other text on screen. Violations carried fines, civil lawsuits, and jail time.

The law didn’t require anyone to actually be harmed or deceived. It punished speech based on a speculative “risk” of harm, a standard so vague that the person posting had no reliable way to know whether they were complying. US District Judge Shanlyn Park found that the law “muddies the line between compliance and noncompliance by forcing speakers to base their conduct on their own risk assessment, rather than on clear, objective standards.”

She noted the law created an “inherently subjective assessment for enforcement agencies” that “could conceivably lead to discretionary and targeted enforcement that discriminates based on viewpoint.”

Hawaii argued the law was needed to protect election integrity. Park acknowledged that interest but found the state couldn’t show it had chosen the least restrictive means.

Hawaii’s own expert agreed that digital literacy education would work, objecting only that it “would require a larger investment of resources” compared to a ban. Park cited the Supreme Court: “The First Amendment does not permit the State to sacrifice speech for efficiency.”

ADF legal counsel Mathew Hoffmann said: “Hawaii’s war against political memes and satire has come to an end, thankfully. The First Amendment doesn’t allow any state to choose what political speech is acceptable and censor speech in the name of ‘misinformation.’ That censorship is both undemocratic and unnecessary.”

Hawaii follows California, which lost a similar fight against the Bee. Minnesota’s version is still being litigated before the full 8th Circuit.

Keep reading

Texas Woman Arrested for Facebook Post About Town Water Quality

Jennifer Combs had never gotten so much as a speeding ticket. On May 8, police in Trinidad, Texas, arrested her on a state jail felony charge for writing a Facebook post about the town’s water supply.

The post said residents had been hospitalized due to bacteria in the water. The city says that claim was false. So they sent cops to her door.

The charge is felony false alarm or report under Texas Penal Code § 42.06, a statute designed for people who call in fake bomb threats or fabricate emergencies. Trinidad’s police chief and local officials decided it also applies to a woman who ran a community Facebook page and relayed what neighbors told her about getting sick.

Combs’ post, published on her “Southern Belle Watch” account, read in part: “We have received reports that some citizens have been hospitalized due to bacteria in the water. This is a serious public health concern that deserves immediate attention. If your water looks discolored, contains sediment, has a strong odor, or you have experienced related health issues, please send us a message. We are gathering information and reporting findings to the state.”

That post got her a night in the Navarro County Justice Center. She has since filed a federal lawsuit alleging the arrest was “an act of deliberate political retaliation.”

We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.

The water is brown. The city admits it.

Trinidad, a small city in Henderson County about an hour southeast of Dallas, has a water problem that nobody disputes.

Keep reading

Canada’s Military Punished Whistleblowers Who Flagged Illegal COVID Speech Monitoring

The Canadian Armed Forces reprimanded soldiers who warned that an order to spy on citizens during COVID-19 could violate intelligence-gathering rules. The soldiers were right. The military punished them anyway.

Internal records and emails obtained by CBC News show that on March 11, 2020, a team called Joint Operational Effects (JOE) was ordered to create anonymous social media accounts and scour the internet for information about Canadians.

Under the direction of Col. Chris Henderson, the team produced dozens of reports between March 19 and June 5, tracking what the federal Conservative, NDP, and Bloc Québécois parties were saying about the pandemic.

The Canadian military was monitoring opposition political parties using anonymous accounts created specifically for surveillance.

At least two JOE team members pushed back. They emailed their chain of command, warning that creating anonymous accounts without authorization, while working from home on personal computers, could breach intelligence directives.

One soldier wrote to Maj. John Zwicewicz on March 12, 2020: “Given the sensitivity around social media and military use I have concerns about this.”

They added: “My concern is that by creating these accounts without following proper procedure would come close to, or cross the line set out in the policy.” Another asked to go into the office because they felt it “represented a serious risk” to do the work at home.

Zwicewicz claimed a legal adviser had approved the activities and ordered the group to “cease barrack room lawyering” and get back to work. The team was formally reprimanded more than a week after raising concerns. A source told CBC News that within months, some members quit or were medically released.

The people who raised alarms about potentially illegal surveillance of Canadian citizens got punished. The people who ordered the surveillance kept their positions.

Keep reading